Major changes announced for train travel in one part of Wales
A huge plan to transform train services in north Wales has been announced
Major changes are proposed for north Wales services including Wrexham General
(Image: Google Maps )
The Welsh Government has said it wants to electrify the north Wales mainline in a newly-published grand plan for how it aims to improve rail services in north Wales. The plan includes short-term improvements, like increasing the frequency of services and removing level crossings so services can flow more smoothly, right through to electrifying the north Wales mainline and Metro-style services to all stations.
A plan being announced on Thursday looks at short-, medium-, and long-term plans for the area with some starting in the next six months and others going right through to 2035 and beyond.
In the next six months plans include speaking to people about closing level crossings, renaming the Borderlands Line as Wrexham to Liverpool, and investigating what it can do to improve connectivity between north Wales and London. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here .
The plan is for work to begin immediately to begin discussing major improvements on the north Wales mainline and Marches line. It would mean improvements to stations and lines as well as increased frequency of services.
What are the aims and how long will they take?
Six- to 12-month timescale
Improvements on stations between Wrexham and Liverpool
Double train service frequency between Wrexham and Chester
50% more Transport for Wales (TfW) services on the north Wales mainline
New bus stations to help jobs between Wrexham and Deeside
Pay as you go fares in north east Wales
Metro branding on trains and buses as well as stations
Direct services between Liverpool and Llandudno
One to three years
Upgrading Padeswood station
A "reliable" two trains per hour on Wrexham to Liverpool line
Complete development work on electrification
Improve Buckley station
Article continues below
Five years
New stations including connecting Deeside Industrial Estate
Improved connectivity to Manchester Airport
Consistent rail timetable for the north Wales mainline
New trains
Upgrade Gobowen Signal to increase Marches line capacity
Prepare for electrification of north Wales mainline
By 2035
North Wales mainline electrified with new rolling stock being rolled out and more services
Chester station enhanced
Improved connections between Wrexham General and Central
Four trains per hour between Wrexham and Liverpool
Enhanced connections to Liverpool South Parkway
Redouble the line between Wrexham and Chester
Improve accessibility at stations
Beyond 2035
Metro-style services to all stations south of Wrexham to Gobowen to Crewe
Tram-train connections to "key settlements"
Improve journey times between north and south Wales
New stations north and south of Wrexham including A55 Parkway
Enhanced connectivity to Warrington Bank Quay
Marches Line resignalling and electrification
Northern Line connections
A map of Welsh Government proposals for the North Wales mainline
(Image: Welsh Government )
The operation of the railway in Wales is a Welsh Government responsibility. However infrastructure planning and the funding of Network Rail in Wales remains reserved to the UK Parliament.
Electrifying the north Wales mainline was something suggested by former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak but his party conference announcement was derided as having no plans behind it. The Welsh Government's then-transport minister said at the time that any discussions between the-then UK and Welsh Governments were looking at a range of projects but this had never been discussed.
On October 4, 2023, Mr Sunak stood on the stage at the Conservative party conference and confirmed he was scrapping the HS2 line to Manchester. Instead he promised transport improvements "in all parts of the country" including to electrify the north Wales mainline.
However the Labour administration in Wales said it had not been informed of the plans.
In the Senedd Lee Waters MS said: "We've had no conversations with the UK Government about this." The cost, it later was estimated, was around £1bn but even that was disputed by Mr Waters who said: "We have no idea of the cost of it" and claimed the £1bn was "a finger in the air figure".
Article continues below
When Mr Sunak visited Wales the following February we asked him what was happening with the scheme. He told us a meeting happened to be happening that day but three months later his then levelling up minister Michael Gove admitted there was no progress.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
RACHEL RICKARD STRAUS: We pay a high price if No 11 is scared of markets
What can throw tantrums and fling its toys out of the pram when it doesn't get what it was hoping for? A petulant child may spring to mind – but it's an equally accurate description of financial markets. Investors crave certainty and Governments tie themselves in knots trying to give it to them for fear of the consequences. Understandably so – if investors start to lose confidence in a Government's prudence, they can throw a strop and refuse to lend it more money unless they are compensated with higher interest payments. Debt costs then spiral, gobbling up taxes and leaving the Government with less to spend on everything else. So you can see where Chancellor Rachel Reeves was coming from when she made it clear from the off that her mission is to keep financial markets happy. With debt interest predicted to cost us £111 billion this year, we can hardly afford for the bill to rise further. That's already around £3,915 per household. Appeased markets should mean lower debt payments – in theory, good news for us all. But Reeves' attempts to provide security for financial markets are resulting in her eroding it elsewhere. UK households are now the ones in the dark and fearful about what's coming their way – and that is starting to have its own consequences. Ms Reeves' strategy to create certainty was to construct rules about how much the Government would borrow and pledge never to break them. But meeting her rules is getting trickier as economic growth weakens. Short of a miracle, the only way she'll manage it is if households stump up. She'll have to find £50 billion from somewhere – be it tax rises or spending cuts. The problem is that we won't know where she'll target – and are unlikely to for several long months until the autumn Budget. The uncertainty is already starting to bite. Financial experts have told us that households risk making costly mistakes when trying to protect their estates against the possibility that Ms Reeves chooses to target inheritance tax. Leading estate agent Savills last week warned that a 'vacuum' of information about potential changes to inheritance tax is also affected house sales. Potential buyers are sitting on their hands in part because they don't know what is coming down the line. Collectively that hurts the housing market, but individually that's thousands of households stuck in homes that no longer suit them and putting life plans on hold. Aviva boss Amanda Blanc also warned last week that fears of a Budget tax raid are stoking customers' uncertainty. 'There's been a huge amount of speculation… customers should wait and see before they take any action,' she said. 'It is really important you don't do anything detrimental.' Relentless uncertainty about the outlook for pensions erodes confidence in them – which can make savers think twice before making such a long-term investment. Things will only get worse as we get closer to the Budget. Chancellors and the Treasury have a habit of stoking rumours about what they might do – to gauge the public response and decide whether or not to go ahead. Think-tanks, financial firms and other invested organisations publish endless papers about what the Chancellor could and should do in the hope of steering her decisions. Speculation mounts, fears grow. It's easy to get caught up in the frenzy. So what to do? For most of us, the best action to take is likely to be none at all. Acting rashly on rumour could leave you worse off than waiting to see what happens. Any changes the Chancellor does make are unlikely to come in immediately, so you should have time to act then if you need to. But it doesn't hurt to do things that are win-win – in other words, that you wouldn't regret regardless of what the Chancellor does or doesn't announce. That means stashing what you can in your Isa, where investment returns, dividends and interest earned are tax-free. It means remembering your pension as well. Tax relief is effectively free money in your long-term savings – an incredibly generous perk – and long may it remain. And it means doing what makes sense in your life, rather than what may prove to be the most tax efficient. Giving away wealth now may help keep it from the Chancellor if she targets inheritance tax, but that's little solace if it leaves you short in older age. Finally, the Chancellor should keep a check on the uncertainty that she's creating among households. If it results in fearful households curbing their spending, making poor financial decisions and a gummed-up housing market, then financial markets won't like that either – and, as always, they'll make her pay.
Scottish Sun
35 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
British racing to go on strike for first time in its history in protest at betting tax rise with ALL meetings cancelled
Key figures within the sport are opposing a Government proposal RACE IS RUN British racing to go on strike for first time in its history in protest at betting tax rise with ALL meetings cancelled Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) BRITISH racing is set to go on strike for the first time EVER next month. September 10 events at Carlisle, Uttoxeter, Kempton and Lingfield Park are all set to be scrapped. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Four events are set to be scrapped next month, including at Lingfield Credit: Getty The Treasury have proposed to up taxes paid by bookies on racing profits from 15 to 21 per cent - in line with online casinos. According to The Times, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) have organised the strike, which could cost the industry around £700,000, in opposition to the proposal. The BHA claim that the proposed change would cost the sector £66million every year and put up to 2,752 people out of a job While they also warned that it would send the sport into "irreversible decline". The proposed strike is set to take place just one day before the start of the St Leger Festival at Doncaster. This means that the issue will be placed at the forefront of the sport by the time the prestigious event, that prime minister Keir Starmer attended alongside his wife last year, comes around. Chief executive of the BHA Brant Dunshea said: "This latest tax bombshell from the Government, if followed through, poses one of the gravest risks to horseracing the sport has ever seen. 'The horseracing industry is already in a precarious financial position, and the latest research provides a much more catastrophic forecast than we first thought. 'We're talking thousands of jobs at risk across the supply chain, severely impacted towns and communities, and the irreversible decline of the country's second most popular sport.' It's claimed that bookies would likely look to increase their prices should the proposal come into effect - while two thirds of punters claim that a tax increase would push people towards the gambling black market. Owners remove £195,000 Grade 2-winning horse from Gordon Elliott's yard with his blessing and send to his protege It's also said that bookmakers would cut their advertising and market budgets - while turning their focus towards online gaming. David Menuisier, a trainer at Coombelands Racing Stables, recently told The Sun: 'Racing is much more than just a sport in this country. 'It brings fun and excitement to millions and is a major local employer, particularly here in West Sussex as we prepare for another fantastic year at Goodwood.'
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
‘I should be living independently – but I can't afford it'
The full-time worker's inability to buy or rent her own place is highlighted as it was claimed that planning permission for build to rent and student accommodation outstrips affordable housing by over 20 to one in the city. Liz Davidson is just one of the many people affected by Glasgow's housing emergency. She has lived in Partick since she was five years old but says there is no way she could afford the new housing currently being built in the area. 'There are two developments going on near where I live, neither of which is at all affordable to me,' she said. READ MORE: Scottish Government minister joins march in support of Palestine 'I work a full-time job and they would want about 75% of my wages for a one-bedroom flat. Because of this, I've had to make the hard decision to stay living with my gran in her flat, which is a social home. 'At 37, I should be living independently and starting a family but I can't afford to. That's not my shame, it's Glasgow City Council's. They seem to think they're above the rules when it comes to building affordable housing.' The National Planning Framework 4's requirement is that all developments include 25% affordable homes or provide 'commuted sums' to help pay for infrastructure. However purpose built student accommodation is exempt from the rule, making it more attractive to investors. Campaign group Living Rent claim developments of purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) and build to rent in Glasgow outstrip affordable housing by 23 to one. They say only 447 units of affordable housing (mid-market rent and social housing) were approved between February 1 2023, and March 1 2025, while 53.7% of all applications granted planning permission are for PBSA developments in Glasgow. The majority of build-to-rent and PBSA developments are in the city centre, without any affordable housing units. The figures show that the council could be doing much more to alleviate the housing crisis, Living Rent claims. Only two developments by private corporations had an affordable housing contribution, one of 15% and the other of 13%, the Living Rent study says. In addition, the researchers could find no evidence of Glasgow City Council agreeing commuted sums for build-to-rent or private developments that failed to provide the 25% affordable housing component. The council declared a housing emergency in November 2023 citing an 'overwhelming increase' in homelessness. READ MORE: I went to the 'first legal wedding' at the Edinburgh Fringe – here's what it was like As of September 2024, there were more than 7000 people living in temporary accommodation, of which 3100 are children. This is costing the city £36 million a year for B&B spend, a 40% increase over the last three years. Glasgow has also seen a 22% increase in homelessness applications in the year from September 2023 to 4241. This is not helped by the rise in private rental prices. Since 2010, rent has increased 81.8% for a two bedroom property, over 30% above inflation (50%). Bianca Lopez, a Living Rent's spokesperson, said Glasgow was quickly becoming a city that prioritised the interests of developers over the wellbeing of its residents. 'Glaswegians don't need more student accommodation or expensive build-to-rent,' she said. 'We need social and affordable housing. 'Across Glasgow, people are being forced out of their communities, pushed into poverty and, in some cases, made homeless by the shortage of affordable places to live. 'Our report exposes the hypocrisy of Glasgow City Council and their failures to take action on affordable housing, despite announcing a housing emergency. 'It's unbelievable that the council has chosen to prioritise private developers' profits over the homes that Glasgow so badly needs.' Lopez said the council needed to prioritise affordable homes in its planning system and shift the balance away from unaffordable tenures such as PBSA and build to rent. 'It needs to implement the 25% requirement in NPF4 across the board. Only then will it be able to deliver the social and affordable housing that Glasgow deserves,' she said. What is the council saying? A Glasgow City Council spokesperson said: 'We do not recognise these figures. Around a half of all homes built in Glasgow every year are affordable/social, and comparing student rooms to new homes with a number of bedrooms is not comparing like for like. In Glasgow, there is a very high proportion of social homes built compared with the figures for any other Scottish or UK local authority.' The spokesperson added that planning applications did not lead to a development. 'If a housing association puts in a planning application for a development of social/affordable homes, then it will have support for funding and will in all likelihood be built out,' he said. 'This is not always the case for PBSA or build to rent.' However Living Rent said this was ignoring the 'fundamental point' of their research. 'The council is trying to pull the wool over our eyes by citing past data and ignoring the fundamental point of what our research says: their planning approvals are favouring unaffordable housing which will push up rents and push us out of the city centre,' said a spokesperson. 'Unless action is taken now, Glaswegians who have lived here their whole lives will be forced out by high rents and a lack of social housing. Glasgow needs social and affordable housing developments to be prioritised not PBSA and build-to-rent developments. 'If the developments that have received planning approval go ahead or developments seeking approval are granted permission, Glasgow and particularly the city centre would become increasingly gentrified. 'Our city centre will be a playground for the rich, all the while enabling foreign investment funds huge returns.' With regards to comparing student accommodation with other housing developments, Living Rent said it would be wrong to count a student development as one unit when it contained hundreds of beds. 'Many social housing developments did not specify the number of beds, so the 'unit' metric is imperfect but the closest way to compare what is being approved,' said the spokesperson. 'Even if we assume that a social home is on average 2.5 beds, approved purpose-built student accommodation and build-to-rent developments still vastly outstrip social and affordable housing by eight to one.'
